But I asked you 4 questions. I want to know why you think the way you think.

I said sound like the "lol regs" who don't think advance concepts work on donks.

In this particular case, when we arrive at the river, Villain almost always had some completely stupid hand the entire way, which is now total air unless it paired the 9 or 7. In that case, you might as well shove because, if he has total air, he's calling nothing that you bet, and if he hit the 9 or 7, he is likely bad enough to call it all.

Grunch. This is pretty lol dude, though I can relate to how bad it feels to completely miss value and wonder wtf you just did. Don't let terribad villains who seem to be violating the laws of poker every time they act throw you off your game.

Bet flop. As played raise flop to 20-30.

As played raise turn to 25-35.

As played bet half pot on river, $25 or so.

After reading through discussion, just wanted to chime in with two thoughts here—

1. Harrington's advice on shoving with the nuts seems relevant here, and is something I thought of as well. But we shouldn't ignore Grunch's point that the HOC so-called "optimal" approach to river play with the nuts netted us $0 in this hand. Obviously we can't predict what all villains will do before shoving, and to really implement his strategy we have to use it in almost all situations. But reading this HH history we should see that we may be dealing with a somewhat "special" villain in this case.

2. I so, so, so, so disagree with this point:

Villain has given us every indication he DOES NOT CARE to get much money in. If this guy were eager to go broke he would be shortstacking a higher game, playing craps, or paying off river shoves. This dude is not sitting on a 2000bb bankroll, 10k in his checking account, or 5,000 shares of AAPL. He's sitting on the last $65 of his gambling money and doesn't want to part with it all at once. It's our job to accommodate him.

One subset of villains I'll happily accept an "it's only money" argument for value owning are rich, well-rolled fish. These are the guys who will pay off ridic bets to keep you honest, and then compliment you for looking them up. Unfortunately they aren't the norm at 1/2.

I think you're better off leading out on the flop. If you are going to check-call the flop though, I think the way you played the turn and river after that are fine.

I don't understand the PF raise to $13 with pocket 5's when you're OOP. Why not limp instead?

Oh wow.....Grunch, are you the poster that is behind the very well-known 2+2 term?

If so.....we're in the presence of royalty. I'm honored to be in this thread. Phulhouze, you are really really going to regret your post. Just sayin'...

Back to OP: Excellent advice re: why you bet, and perhaps just as important, how much we bet. We want weaker hands to call. We want better hands to fold. Where that line is depends on our villain reads and on the strength of our hand.

There are times when shoving with the nuts is the correct play if you think there's some chance villain might talk himself into a call. The one or two times he calls your shove makes up for the 8 or 9 times he folds. But that's neither here nor there....

How do you conclude this from the OPs description of villain? So 20 year old black guys can't have $200 more in their pocket?

BTW, did anyone even factor in OPs description that villain is "high or drunk"?

ohhh hai grunch, long time

well id have to say that if OP is putting villain on an ace give the turn call of the check raise then shoving would be OK. granted in this instance because he didnt call doesnt mean its the wrong bet per se.

if a shove gets call 80% then 68*.8 = 54.4$

and if half pot gets called 100% then 34$

obv theres no way to get these number to be completely accurate in the short term. i do however disagree with people who focus too much on things like SPR vs non thinking villains. they are not thinking about equity decisions. they look at their hand and how much they feel is ok to spend on it. this guy might be the type of player who has a weakish ace but because you raised the turn he doesnt want to put 68 more dollars in.

just because its a PSB does not mean its an easy ship. it should always be tailored to the max amount they are willing to call when you have a value hand, and the minimum amount they will fold to when you have a bluff hand.

Lol at the thought this guy is possibly not calling any bet size with an A here. Seriously? He might not raise/ship an A ("just in case"), but he's always calling.

if seen people fold, because well you raised the turn then shoved river so you obv have a boat.

i know its possible because when i first started playing i assumed everyone was capable of thinking on level 7 and made a few ******o folds like this. ive seen other people do it as well. i watched a guy fold the river face up with trip aces to a 12 dollar bet because he knew the guy flopped a boat with AT, flop AAT, guy folded A8. ive seen a friend of mine in a hand with J3hh on the BTN (hes kinda a donk but w/e), flop a FD, calls a small bet on the flop, checks turn 3 way, river makes the flush, SB leads around pot and he folds face up and SB shows K7hh.

not saying either of the folds are anywhere near correct but to assume they never happen is just silly

I'm not saying they never happen either. But unless I'm totally misreading OP's description of villain, this particular guy never ever folds an A here.

just reread it and yeah it may be unlikely that he folds.

but at the same time people view money differently. he may not want to put ~60 in with trip aces. but 20 he'll call 100% of the time

just because he called a $5 bet with T high doesnt mean hes stacking ~60 with an ace here. the two spots are so different

Bet the flop.

It gets money in the pot and its the "least suspicious" time to get money in the pot if villain doesn't have an A.

Once you check, any bet will be read as slow playing and any opponent will lock up. You gotta be brave and bet out, he would never suspect it.

EDIT: The MAchine and I are talking about folding/not folding at two different points in the hand. I'm talking about after an OP opens the flop.

You think an intoxicated or embarrassingly-enough-not-intoxicated-but-just-stupid person is gonna fold three Aces for 60$?

I say maybe 1 out of 50 kids under 21(****, anyone under 65 probably) fold that in a live game.

This is about as wrong of a thing as I've ever seen posted here. In this particular case, there's a good chance you''re right. In general, you're horrifyingly wrong. How clueless someone is about standard betting procedures and amounts in live NL Holdem may often have zero to do with their financial situation. For all you know, some random guy betting $4 in a 1/2 game could be very financially well off, but betting tiny and being passive is HIS concept of the game. I've seen rich people sit at tiny games and rarely touch a chip, and young kids with nothing to their name shovel it into the center faster than you could imagine.

If he calls $20 100% of the time, and $65 50% of the time or anywhere near it, it's better to shove.

Also, he rarely if ever has trips here, he more likely has what was an air hand on the flop that is either still air or hit a pair. If it's still air, he's calling nothing. If he paired up, he's as liable to call all of it as he is a small value bet.

2ONP makes a really good point there.

IIRC bill gates loves poker and his game of choice is 4-8 LIMIT holdem

yeah i was just using a random number for bet size.

but obv we can skew the % or bet size to say shove/bet less, but in actuality it doesnt prove anyones point.IF thats the case as you put it then yes shove ITLR is better. IF he calls 30 75% and calls a shove 30% then 30 is better. we havent gotten anywhere with this analysis

thats not true, as OP already said he called a $5 bet on the river with T high and tabled his hand

Well, then he's a terrible player who called a tiny bet because he's intoxicated, inexperienced, or both. I'd rather take the chance that he stacks off $65 when he makes a pair after I shove than try and get "max" value by leading out for $5 or $12 or whatever.

Hey, how you doin'?

One in the same, though I wouldn't go so far as to call myself "royalty."

Agreed.

This is where you've lost me. I don't think he is willing to call a shove with garbage made hands. I come to this conclusion from his prior actions. Look at what he's done so far.

- He has made tiny/minbets in huge pots in previous hands
- He has called small bets with airballs
- He has made a bare minbet on the flop when it was checked to him
- He made the same size bet on the turn when it checked again
- When he was checkraised smallish, he flatted

There were not many draws available on any street.

When an inexperienced opponent makes a much-too-small bet, there are generally only a couple reasons why:

1) It is a total bluff and dead money. If raised, they will fold.
2) It is a blocking bet of sorts. If raised, they will call. This could either be a semibluff with a draw, or a valuebet with a weak hand. (Note that blocking bets that fold when raised are actually pure bluffs)
3) It is an attempt to induce action with what they think is the best hand. This is a value bet with the intention of getting all the money in possible.

Hero needs to decide which of these is what's happening here.

I conclude that it is the first -- a bluff that will fold when raised. It's hard to make good hands in Hold'Em; much harder on paired, rainbow boards. I think it's safe to assume from this alone that Villain doesn't have a good hand. If that's not enough, Villain's actions back this up. He's bet small, not big. We have seen him call tiny bets with tiny hands. Moreover, when someone has a big hand they naturally want to make or call big bets.

Finally, #3 -- the inducement bet -- is a kind of reverse bluff. It's a tricky play, and it is something that happens much less frequently that we'd like to believe. Again, people's natural tendencies are to bet big with big hands, small with small hands. It's only when we start *thinking* about it when we decide against this natural action.

So, my conclusion is that Villain has a garbage hand. Now, what do we bet?

People who bet small with small hands do so because, again, our natural tendancy is to want to make small bets with small hands. Not big bets with small hands. Since Villain has a small hand (a conclusion I'm going to presume going forward -- no point in being wishy-washy), he has bet small because he doesn't want to lose a lot. Will a player who doesn't want to lose a lot call a huge bet with their garbage hand? Of course not. Not unless they are afraid of getting bluffed, and even then it's nigh impossible to commit your entire stack with a non-hand on the fear of getting bluffed. It's simply not happening. Therefore, there is a zero percent chance that villain will call a shove at the end.

(Disclaimer: OK, maybe not *zero*, but as damned close to zero as you can get without actually saying the word "never")

How much will he call? He's already shown a willingness to call $15, so that is a safe starting bet. There is an upper limit someplace; I don't know what it is. I would probably have bet $15 or $20.

in regards to 2ONP's last post (sorry didnt quote it and grunch made a long post so not to confuse to what i was responding to)

thats the tough thing about poker, you never know in actuality until you make the bet.

the shove got him to fold. maybe the max he was calling would have been 12, but maybe he would have called 20

i try to always get value when ever i can and if ITLR its costs me a few $ in EV then im OK with it because i currently have the extra $ i made by making a slightly smaller bet.

of course in a purely theoretical sense this is hogwash because we always need to take the most +EV line, but let me phrase it to you like this.

if the guy says 99% of the time if you shove i will call.

then he says if you bet 1$ less then a shove i will call 100% of the time
(im just using his AI as 60$ cause i dont remember the exact of 65 or 68 or w/e it was)
59$ 100%
or $59.4 99%

im passing up on that .4$ in EV in the long run and making sure im called 100% of the time. sure it is not logical, but at the time i feels much better in my wallet.

point being there has to be some breaking point





and im doing well grunch thanks for asking. nice to see you back around 2p2. always enjoyed your insight

You sound like you're giving up.

Giving up making the best play; giving up trying to understand our opponent; giving up making the best decisions -- I'm not sure exactly what.

Hopefully, if we as poker students are doing our jobs right, almost every opponent we come across will be a " terrible player who [is] intoxicated, inexperienced, or both" compared to us. That's where most of our money will come from: the players who are much worse than us. Not the players who are only a little worse than us or the players as good or better than us.